User talk:BigHaz

My Policy

Now that I'm here, feel free to put any questions/concerns/comments below (preferably in their own section) if you want me to respond. Please specify where you want any responses (if they're necessary). Unless otherwise specified - or unless there's a good reason to do so - I'll reply here. Further, I can and will reply to deliberately inflammatory remarks in order to provide context, should the situation escalate or be at risk of doing so.

If you're wondering why an article was deleted, please read this page first. It should at least serve to clarify the situation, even if it doesn't give you an answer. I'm more than willing to answer, of course, but I'll assume that you've read it through.

I can now also be Emailed if you feel that that's a better way to do things. I can't say that I'm a convert to the idea just as yet, but we'll see how it goes. If you want to guarantee a fast response, please accompany your Email with a comment here (just something like "check your Emails" or "I've commented on the such-and-such by Email" should do the trick).

Where archiving is concerned, I'll archive all "dead" discussions when the page gets too long and leave "live" ones out for a while. That way we don't run the risk of having bits and pieces scattered everywhere.

Who was attacked by me?

Who was attacked by me? I am not understanding this thing you are saying. Please give me a link to the attack. Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love webcomics (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find your response. Please let me know where the attack occurred. I have read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks web page that you referred me to, but I still do not recall where I violated the guideline.

Thank-you, I love webcomics (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was composing the reply but was held up on the phone. I'm referring to this edit, which prompted my warning for a number of reasons. They are as follows:

The edit summary was snarky, as it implied that the other user was stupid, rather than simply holding a different opinion to yours. Not a huge problem in and of itself, but when coupled with the other instances it was a point to mention.
"you are missing the point you idiot" is clearly a personal attack.
"your argument is the most idiotic one on this whole page because you obviously don't even know what the boycott or this discussion is about." Again, this one's a personal attack (especially when coupled with your claim above that that the user's argument is "stupid").

The golden rule in AfD discussions is to comment on content rather than the contributor. If you feel that another user is misinterpreting you or hasn't understood what the article is about, you're welcome to point that out, but it's infinitely safer to do so politely. Calling people idiots because they disagree with you is not a way to succeed in this or any other walk of life. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I see what you're talking about now, and I admit I was wrong, but there are two things you seem to have missed:

I was not arguing against anyone. Everyone, including me and the person I was addressing agreed that the page should be removed. I was trying to explain to the person who was attacking me that they were actually arguing on my side (even though he/she didn't realize it).

What I was doing, was responding to someone who was accusing me of not only trolling, but of using Wikipedia as a way to make money for myself. This person was not only calling me names, but also accusing me of lying and attempting to defraud Wikipedia by turning it into an advertisement. How have things gotten so bad that if you mention anyone's name on a page you create, everyone assumes that that is your name and you are promoting yourself? I mentioned the name of one webcomic, whose name I got from an article in the Wikipedia Fundraiser Blog (and didn't even say anything about whether he was a good or bad webcomic) and now I have people seriously accusing me of being that person. For goodness sakes I've never even seen his artwork, and I don't even remember his name anylonger!

I agree that I should not have used the words "stupid" or "idiotic" in my response, but I disagree with you that I should not have implied that the argument was stupid, because it was stupid. The other user was calling me a troll and accusing me of writing an article about myself. The main point you seem to be missing is that I was trying to explain to this user that the user was wasting their time calling me a troll and trying to "expose" me or whatever, because not only was I NOT trolling and NOT lying, but arguing with anyone (including me) about the matter is idiotic because the decision to delete the page was already anonymous. I agree that it was not helpful for me to say that the user was being an idiot--I should have left that part out. But honestly, viciously arguing against someone because you haven't noticed that the issue you are arguing about it unanimous is pretty silly. And accusing someone of lying about who they are just so they can promote themselves on Wikipedia is not only negligent, but is also not logically sound (Fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial, I think). Not only is this negligent and illogical, but it is not tactful either since accusing someone of lying is unlikely to get them to admit it or to yield any productive discussion.

It is difficult to not call someone whom you already agree with an idiot when they are viciously arguing with you and accusing you of lying, and the only reason they are arguing is because they for some reason don't realize that you agree with them.

At any rate, I've been so disgusted by the attitude and atmosphere of editors on Wikipedia that I will never be making another edit anyway, so no worries about me ever again calling someone an idiot for not realizing that they agree with me. Maybe if a new project similar to Wikipedia arises where people's actual status (as a Professor or specialist or whatever) is verifiable, then I will volunteer my time to contribute to that project. It is the anonymity that cripples Wikipedia. If it weren't for this anonymity, then no one would have ever even thought of accusing me of being a webcomic, because everyone would be able to see that I am a college student studying Math and that I am too young to possibly be the person they are accusing me of being. Everyone on Wikipedia (not literally everyone obviously...but stay with the spirit of what I am saying...please avoid the urge to attack me based on symantics)...Everyone on Wikipedia seems to be assuming that Webcomics are creating articles for self-promotion and that editors are removing those articles as a good-faith way to clean-up Wikipedia. Using that paranoid logic (which is not really logical at all since it violates the fallacy I listed above), why not assume that the people creating the articles are not webcomics, but are webcomic fans creating those articles as a good-faith way to make Wikipedia more complete, and that the editors deleting the articles are doing so for self-promotion, because I am sure (I have no evidence...so once again stay with the spirit of what I am saying)...I am sure that some of the editors on wikipedia who insenently delete articles about webcomics are doing so becasue they are print comics (people who have their comics in newspapers) and because webcomics are the competition. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the companies that distribute comic strips to the newspapers actually hire people to be Wikipedia editors and anonymously censor Wikipedia.

If you take one thing away from this let it be that you should never accuse someone of lying unless you are sure they are lying. People on the Internet in general, and especially on Wikipedia seem to forget that accusing someone of lying is a very serious matter, much much worse than calling someone names or telling them to fuck off. Accusing someone of lying when you are not absolutely sure they have lied will almost always destroy any relationship (professional, romantic, virtual, or otherwise) that you have with that person, and is extremely unlikely to encourage them to admit they lied or to in any other way produce any progress in the conversation.

I don't know who started the rumor that I was a liar (I know I could look it up in the edit history but I don't care). Whoever it was, that person, along with everyone else who jumped in to help them, have succeeded in their goal of convincing me not to edit Wikipedia. The unfortunate part is that the reason these people wanted me to never edit Wikipedia again is because they thought I was a liar and a fraud, when in reality I am an honest, sincere, and progressive undergraduate student who is very impressed with all voluntary cooperative ventures, including Wikipedia. :-( I love webcomics (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Dear BigHaz, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and more canine and Eurovision amusement... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

File:010105 fireworks2.jpg

Thanks, mate. Looks as though I'll be somewhere Balkan on the days of the actual competition this year, so I hope I'll be in a room with a TV and the right channels. Happy New Year to you as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request your comments

Ask Admin BigHaz. He took care of nom'ing all the Metallica songs that weren't singles for AfD. The concensus was redirect them all. If you look at all the Metallica albums... none of the non-singles exist anymore. Every song used to have its own article. Which was just superfluous overkill and useless. BigHaz can explain the history. 156.34.212.152 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please show me a link to this consensus.--Rockfang (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. This AfD is an example of one such decision to merge the pages. The other non-singles in question should have AfDs which can be reached by substituting their titles for this one, although I can dig out the links if you're having trouble finding them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. No need to pull up one for each song.--Rockfang (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*phew* I'd thought for a moment that there might've been one particular song you were after, rather than just the general class of "Metallica album tracks". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's me

Yes, it is your old friend, Jc Iindyysgvxc. I just want you to know that with the IP addresses I have used recently, I have made constructive edits. Infact, I even got two disruptive users blocked by reporting them at AIV (this one and this one). So you OK with me now? 121.219.34.121 (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may be OK with you, but I'm not. All the edits before this on this IP were clearly disruptive, and the statements are incorrect as to this IP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, the IP above has been blocked, the same fate that has befallen this user on several other occasions. I sometimes wish we could contact the user's parents and explain what "good use" their child is making of their internet connection. Having moderated a site which occasionally did precisely that, I know we got results in the form of mummy and daddy physically removing the kid's computer sometimes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the indef block of an ip is unnecessary is this user keeps changing his ip - we simply end up blocking someone else later. Please could you consider something like 6 months instead? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a post here from sock of this fellow. Annoying isn't he. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the half of it. A 6-month block is superficially a good idea, but I fear that it sends the wrong message (you can edit in 6 months) rather than the message we're trying to send (you cannot ever, never, under any circumstances, edit again). I'd be more inclined to leave the block as is and then lift it if there's collateral damage, rather than the other way around. Then again, I might be influenced by the fact that I've been dealing with this pest for nigh on a year now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Just to let you know a user started a thread at ANI about your indef. blocking some IP address. See WP:ANI#BigHaz. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of context, it won't surprise anybody that the user starting this thread is the same long-term vandal who's been making life so much fun for the majority of the year. I'd like to think that he'll accept the decision of the umpire this time, but I don't think anything short of someone pulling his computer out at the wall, giving him six of the best and no dessert for a week will stop him now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it suspicious as well, but rather than commenting on the thread itself, I chose to notify you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a good thing you did. My comment is more for my own records later on, when I look back at this in an archive in 6 months time and wonder why the devil an IP started an ANI thread about me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]